Maximum Availability Limited v. Vision Solutions, Inc. et al, No. 2:2010cv01488 - Document 434 (C.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT AND CONSENTINJUNCTION by Judge George H. Wu, Plaintiff Maximum Availability Limited take nothing on its first claimfor relief for false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act and its fourth claimfor relief for trade libel; and that judgment be entered in favor of Defendants onthose claims; By consent of the parties, the Order Re Preliminary Injunction entered by the Court on May 20, 2010 [Dkt. # 72] remains in effect during the period afterthis judgment is entered, and until the time for appeal has expired, or, if an appealis taken, until jurisdiction is returned to the District Court, with no admission ofliability by the Defendants. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (pj)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Maximum Availability Limited v. Vision Solutions, Inc. et al Doc. 434 JS-6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 12 13 MAXIMUM AVAILABILITY LIMITED, a New Zealand limited liability company 14 15 16 17 18 Plaintiff, Case No. CV 10-1488-GW(RZx) FINAL JUDGMENT AND CONSENT INJUNCTION v. VISION SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation, et al., Defendants. 19 20 21 22 WHEREAS, on May 20, 2010, this Court entered its Order Re Preliminary Injunction as Docket No. 72 (the "Injunction"); WHEREAS, on May 13, 2013, this Court granted the motions for partial 23 summary judgment filed by Defendants Vision Solutions, Inc., Eva Succi, and Sir- 24 ius Computer Solutions, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) and dismissed the first 25 claim for relief for false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act and the fourth 26 claim for relief for trade libel asserted in Plaintiff Maximum Availability Limited’s 27 Fourth Amended Complaint; and 28 WHEREAS, Plaintiff Maximum Availability Limited voluntary dismissed Dockets.Justia.com 1 without prejudice the second and third claims for relief asserted in the Fourth 2 Amended Complaint, namely for violations of California’s Unfair Competition 3 Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. and California’s False Advertising 4 Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq., conditioned upon the Injunction in 5 this action remaining in place pending appeal, 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 8 1. Plaintiff Maximum Availability Limited take nothing on its first claim 9 for relief for false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act and its fourth claim 10 for relief for trade libel; and that judgment be entered in favor of Defendants on 11 those claims; 12 2. Plaintiff's claims for violations of California’s Unfair Competition 13 Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq., and for violations of California’s 14 False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 are dismissed, without 15 prejudice; and 16 3. By consent of the parties, the Order Re Preliminary Injunction entered 17 by the Court on May 20, 2010 [Dkt. # 72] remains in effect during the period after 18 this judgment is entered, and until the time for appeal has expired, or, if an appeal 19 is taken, until jurisdiction is returned to the District Court, with no admission of 20 liability by the Defendants. 21 22 Dated: December 19, 2013. Hon. George H. Wu United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 23832.0 1 / 4813-668 3-778 3, v. 1 -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
